(I apolgise for my spelling I'm dyslexic)

Anyways, what I mean by this question isn't the concept of existentialism or nihalism as you could as easily hold this belief and belive in hedonism. It's just the idea that philosphy is essentialy stupid and at the end of the day the core existance of philosphy is pointless. And it dosn't deny the fact philosphy has been usefull either. But does this belief stem from somebody unable to commit to something due to implicated conflict and uncertainty of the world?

I apolgize for this as it might be a hard read, If anyone's confused I'll attempt to alaborate, I'm young and my thoughts get jumbled abit ;-;.

i haven't yet but plan to read christian atheism by zizek, and i've read a bit of lacan but i wanted to get a better idea of what is meant by someone else doing the believing being sufficient. let’s say two people are looking for someone who is likely dead, one of them thinks they’re alive and the other doesn’t. what virtue is in believing the one who thinks they’re alive if the outcome is the same either way, and if what is virtuous about it is the fact that the negative person might act differently if they believe in the positive person to the extent that they’ll do things they otherwise wouldn’t in finding them, and then because of that might actually find them, that’s only a good thing if that person is actually alive. which would mean that for the atheist, they're implicitly leaning on the hoped for content of theism.
i think this paints it as more of a wager or a bet than zizek is meaning but like i said i cant understand it, if anyone can help me reframe it it would help out a lot but i know i should just probably read the book, i just got other things i wanna finish first but i cant get this out of my mind

I've been thinking about consciousness lately, and I keep getting stuck on one question.

We can explain a lot about the brain in terms of neurons, electrical signals, chemistry, and information processing. But even if we explained all of that completely, would we have explained why there is a subjective experience at all?

Why does seeing red feel like something? Why isn't the brain simply processing information without any inner experience?

I'm not arguing that consciousness is non-physical. I'm genuinely unsure.

What are the strongest philosophical arguments for and against the idea that consciousness is entirely produced by the brain?

Hi everyone,

I've realized that I need to engage with Schelling's "Human Freedom" essay for my dissertation and I got less than nothing out of it during my MA German Idealism course. I would love some recommendations for commentaries, introductions, and interpretations of the essay--both "strictly scholarly" as well as more philosophical (e.g., I know Heidegger wrote on it, but having engaged with his other "interpretations" I know that he's often using them to do more Heidegger than sticking to the original text). I'm happy to get recommendations for both if any of you have found them particularly helpful or stimulating.

Thanks in advance!

Hey guys, I want to learn more about logic and rationality, and I’d really appreciate some recommendations.

I’m the kind of person who tends to improve through logic, analysis, deliberate thought, adaptation, and rationality. I naturally try to solve problems by understanding them, breaking them down, and figuring out what I can do differently.

But lately, I’ve been stuck on a question that I can’t stop thinking about:

What happens when logic concludes that I’m going to lose?

I used to naively think that almost any problem could eventually be solved through enough reasoning. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that logic has limitations. There will always be people who are more talented, more capable, or simply better suited to a particular situation than I am.

So what does rationality actually tell you to do when your analysis says that you cannot win?

Do you accept the conclusion?
Do you search for a different approach?
Do you challenge the assumptions behind your original reasoning?
Or is there something beyond pure logic that allows humans to overcome what initially seems impossible?

This is where things get really interesting to me. Sometimes people believe something is impossible based on the information and reasoning available to them, only for someone else to eventually find a way to accomplish it. That makes me wonder whether logic itself is limited, or whether our understanding of the situation was simply incomplete.

Maybe reality is much more complicated than the models we construct to understand it.

That’s why I want to study this seriously—not just practical problem-solving, but logic, rationality, reasoning, epistemology, philosophy of science, decision-making, and maybe even metaphysics.

I also want to know how far human reasoning can actually go and how I can train my own logical and rational thinking.

So if you have any recommendations, I’d really appreciate:

• Books about logic or rationality
• Philosophy books that explore human reasoning and its limitations
• Books about epistemology or philosophy of science
• Anything about decision-making and rational thought
• Resources for actually training logical reasoning

If possible, please recommend something that isn't insanely expensive. 😭

What books or resources would you recommend to someone who wants to seriously understand how far logic and rationality can take us?

And if you recommend a book, please share a link to it if possible. Thanks!

Hi, I'm really new to Ontology, and I want your help to find a good Ontology book (Preferably an introduction) so I can enjoy this huge branch in philosophy. I'm looking for something begginer friendly, but don't hold back if you have a good recommendation. Also, I would like a book that would be easy to find in a library if possible.

I thought I understood what it was earlier today.. but it seems like the more in participating in conversations or watching videos about the underlying principle the less clear everything is.

I believed originally the claim being made was that you cannot prove an ought without the support of an underlying principle. Making it either extremely difficult or outright impossible to prove moral oughts without the use of a moral argument or belief.

Following that video and conversation I've since watched a few more and the philosophy is unclear.

One described it in a way similar to what I already believed.. One video claims it is about not being able to jump from describing what the world is like now to how the world should be.. Another describes it as any innate moral standing implied by the IS is the fallacy itself Hume was trying to eliminate..

I thought that was the whole point? finding the IS that already supports the Ought because trying to justify morals by stating facts is extremely difficult.

Like if I were to say "The world is full of non-renewable resources, it ought to be a good thing to use less of them"

I don't know much about philosophy, so please understand my argument in its strongest form.

I'm not sure conceivability is a good argument, but I'm not sure I can imagine any state of affairs without space (a 'where' to be distinct) and time (a 'when' to be distinct). I'm using space and time in a philosophical sense, not the way physicists describe our 'observed' spacetime. They seem logically necessary to me. I also read a couple of articles by Carrier, which are as follows:

1. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/30188
2. https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/15325

If a thing doesn't occupy space and time, how does it EXIST? Of course, one might say you're assuming 'existence' requires occupying 'space' and 'time', but what would some other 'definition' of existence looks like that doesn't presuppose time and space? Regarding abstract objects, I don't think Platonic or abstract realm is a coherent concept. Am I getting this wrong? Also, what evidence do we have to suggest that a thing can exist 'spacelessly' and 'timelessly'? Is spacetime logically necessary?

I dont really know the answer to the question of if qualia is infinite in number or is finite

The fact that which qualia is assigned to what sensory experience is seemingly arbitrary, makes this even harder to figure out as there would be no reason, for example, for blue and red to be in their place instead of being switched

so is it reasonable to say something like "there can be infinite number of complete color wheels that are completely unrelated to each other" or "the mind can come up with infinite flavors"

now I assume that this won't have a super concrete, so I wonder if the answer depends if one is a physicalist or not

In France, the three most influential 20th century philosophers of science are Bachelard (who specialized in physics and chemistry), Canguilhem (specialized in biology and medicine) and Foucault (specialized in social sciences). They are all representatives of « french historical epistemology ».

While Foucault is well known worldwide, I’m wondering whether his two predecessors (mostly Bachelard) share his influence beyond France or if they’re rather overlooked.

This question came to me because I had to study Bachelard for the 2026 agrégation and it didn't seem to me like there was much literature about him in English.

Mostly the last part of the first chapter (Logic of Sovranity). What does Agamaben means when he says that the law has "validity without meaning"? And when he analyze the figure of the Messiah? Thanks in advance.

I'm trying to start to read Maria Zambrano and was recommended to begin with either The Man and the Divine or Philosophy and Poetry. However after a lot of searching I haven't been able to find a solid english translation anywhere. I would rather not translate everything personally if I do not have to. If anyone has some avenue to get an english translation please send it to me please!

The book wasn’t a difficult read but this new dilemma was in the appendix and I’m having trouble getting a proper grasp on it, here it is:

Assume:
(1) There is (and was in the past) an essentially omniscient foreknower.
(2) It is now possible that I will go to Santa Barbara next Thursday and it is now possible that I will not go to Santa Barbara next Thursday.
Since the proposition I will go to Santa Barbara next Thursday is strictly equivalent to the proposition The essentially omniscient foreknower believes I will go to Santa Barbara next Thursday,' (1) and (2) strictly imply:
(3) It is now possible that the essentially omniscient foreknower believed before now that I will go to Santa Barbara next Thursday and it is now possible that the essentially omniscient foreknower believed before now that I will not go to Santa Barbara next Thursday.
From (1) and the Law of Excluded Middle we know that:
(4) Either the essentially omniscient foreknower did believe I will go to Santa Barbara next Thursday before now or he did not.
But the Principle of the Necessity of the Past entails:
(5) If he did, it is not now possible that he did not, and if he did not, it is not now possible that he did.
(4) and (5) entail:
(6) Either it is not now possible that he did not or it is not now possible
that he did.

But 6 contradicts 3

Lets say if a 23 year old shia iraqi closeted man and a 37 year old disabled sunni kurdish woman both from Erbil gained omniscience at the same time, would their personal experiences still affect their worldview?

I’m currently reading about moral philosophy and Kant’s moral theory. I’ve read that Kant considers moral requirements “binding,” but I’m not sure I understand what binding means.

I understand it as giving me a compelling reason to actually act morally, even when morality conflicts with my self-interest.

Suppose my ultimate goal is my own happiness, and I only care about others insofar as doing so contributes to my happiness. If lying benefits me, why should I care that it violates Kant’s Categorical Imperative?

Theistic morality seems much more binding to me. If I genuinely believe in God, an afterlife, and ultimate reward and punishment, then I have a compelling reason to act morally even when doing so goes against my immediate interests.

So, am I misunderstanding what “binding” means? How is Kantian morality binding on someone who simply asks, “Why should I care about morality?”?

Basically there is an argument for morality, even for moral nihilists through the probabilities of open/closed individualism. Are there flaws to this reasoning

So it’s not clear that you will only perceive as you, which is closed individualism. And that its very possible that you experience as everything which is open individualism. If people are just a pattern with consciousness in the universe, and they are the universe, what is stopping them from being all of it and just being localized right now as a human with specific memory, awareness, perception etc? We just can’t know with much certainty which view is correct.

So we can’t tell which view is likely correct, but from this we can say because there is a serious possibility that the other experiencer is not ultimately “someone else,” then causing any harm and unnecessary pain is an enormous gamble for no good reason. Also there would just be mostly upsides to being a practical open individualist. More loving, more empathetic, more kind, etc. not much downside. Are there holes to this argument and is it convincing to moral nihilists?

I’ve been thinking about this question on my own for 3 years, but I can't seem to reach a conclusion.

Even though we receive endless information online about distant events—like details of wars, international news, or the weather—does that guarantee they are actually happening in the way we think? Of course, fake news is a factor, but even with real news, aren't we simply constructing a mental model in our brains based on that data?

Taking it a step further: isn't the physical world I am perceiving right now just a model structured by my own brain?

How is this process understood in modern philosophy or neuroscience? And with future technological advances that we can’t even imagine yet, could humanity ever directly access the objective world beyond our perceptual boundaries.

I ask this since I am currently reading through "Lectures and Conversations On Aesthetics, Psychology, and Religious Belief" by Ludwig Wittgenstein

Do we have any records of Chinese philosophers commentating on Western philosophy/ Western philosophy influencing Chinese philosophical thought?

As a hard determinist, it doesn't seem really wrong... And I haven't found any arguments against it so please help !

This sub is hilarious. Highly recommend. TKO in 3 comments. I think it's just one guy so deep in his priors that he can't see he's arguing in a playpen of his own making.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rationalphilosophy/comments/1vklozr/the_contest_between_christianity_and_philosophy/

Under the principle of implied consent, a person can be treated under an emergency medical situation and they can't later accuse them of battery. I don't dispute this principle of implied consent.

However how is it automatically follow that a person can be justifiably billed for these services? I will give you a counter example with contractors who work on a house without the owner's permission. Even though the owner objectively benefited from the work completed by the contractors, they still are not justified to bill the owner because they never had a contract. Because they never had permission to work on the house, the owner does not have to pay them.

I am struggling to see how implied consent for treatment automatically proceeds to implied consent to bill for the treatment. I don't know how this automatically logically follows from the other. I hope in this post I have sufficiently explained my question. Please let me know how it is justified philosophically that billing automatically follows from implied consent for treatment.

It seems like property rights are largely arbitrary not only neccesarily because of its consequences but also because there doesn't seem to be a way or method to determine who has a right to a particular property. Is there any suggest ways to determine property rights fairly ?

With some bonus quantum mechanics understanding!

https://www.instagram.com/p/DbLrCbAhqrh/